Sunday, November 05, 2017

Izen has turned the Green Plate Effect and his animation into a video just in time for the bunnies to show it to their uncles at Thanksgiving or Christmas. Copy this onto your smart phone for future use

I take it that someone saying only 300 w/m**2 is coming out is ignoring the 100 w/m**2 coming out of the green plate and going towards the blue plate. If the blue plate absorbs it, the energy numbers have to be recomputed. If not, it's reflected (or something) as another 100 w/m**2. I suppose whether it is or isn't has something to do with quantum mechanics, which according to Richard Feynman, nobody understands.

It visualizes that all comes down to a simple counting of energy quantities and one don't even need to apply any calculations in the first step. Thus it's enough to own the ability to count to see that 1st law requires a further heating of blue when green enters the game.

It took only 4 comments to show that some even lack the ability to count 1, 2, 3,...

I lost the bet against myself it would take at least ten comments for some well-known expert to show up and demonstrate that even a visualization of this simple counting operation is too much to digest intellectually for some.

I lost and have now to pay a bottle of really good red wine to myself. Well, could've been worse.

It is not heating "beyond sun power provided" [ emphasize added ]. You can heat things up to a temperature. And as long as blue does not have reached the surface temperature of the sun, it can be heated further by reducing its speed of heat loss, until its temperature converges at the temperature of the sun. Then the limit is reached according to the laws of thermodynamics.

That you, BP, of all people confuse energy and temperature, is funny. It was you who insisted on a clear distinction between those two, wasn't it? Right you was, but you forget so fast...

Your statement about power is true in one way, namely for the whole system containing all plates that there might be. This system cannot emit more energy than it receives. The blue plate is only one part of the system blue/green and is not affected by a law that touches the sum of all parts. If you confuse "part" and "whole", your confusion of power and temperature gets a reason.But you of all people will not make such a banal mistake, won't you?

"Colder objects (green plate) can not rewarm hotter objects because they lack the higher frequency and more intensity of photons."

This simply does not answer, what exactly happens to these photons. According to you they are forbidden to add their energy to blue, when coming from green. According to the 1st law energy is forbidden to be destroyed. Thus, if both, you and the 1st law are right, it leaves us with the very question what happens to the energy of those photons, which are forbidden to act in any known way.

Enlighten us with your answer to this question! You stated clearly enough that we are wrong, now make a step further and tell us what is right instead! We are waiting for 450 comments or so now.

Re:-----------"Some of the heat from the external source is recycled back to the blue plate by the green one, resulting in a warmer blue plate."

That's not physics. Try again, old fool.------------

If you put a perfectly reflecting mirror behind the blue plate, would its temperature rise? Yes. That's how reflective insulation works. Even a 0K mirror so long as it is perfectly reflecting. If you put nothing behind do you get a rise? No. Put a black body which absorbs 100% and emits 100% and you get an intermediate situation.

It looks like Betty finally made a concrete, specific claim (sort of)! "Colder objects (green plate) can not rewarm hotter objects because they lack the higher frequency and more intensity of photons."

Well, concrete and specific except for the "intensity" part, which is too vague.

So let's address the "frequency" part. But that, too, is still vague, so Betty, please confirm that you mean that a photon can be absorbed by an object only if (a) that photon is greater than or equal to some particular minimum frequency/wavelength, and (b) that minimum frequency/wavelength depends on the temperature of the object the photon hits.

This is hopelessly one-sided, BP is obviously incapable of forming a cogent counter-arguement.

So to play 'devils advocate'...

What happens if the Blue plate (or box) is coated in gold?It absorbes 80% of UV, but reflects 98% of photons with a wavelength longer than ~500um. down into the IR.Below 300K almost all the energy in a S.B. spectra is below that wavelength.As emissivity = reflectivity how on Earth can Gold cool any further ?!Or be warmed by a S.B. spectra from a <300K object !?izen (grin)

I know, as Science of Doom shows you have to calculate the energy flows as modified by the albedo of the objects/molecule involved in relation to the S.B. spectra.

It is possible to minimise warming from back radiation by judicious choice of emitting/absorbing surface. But unless you include a Maxwell's Demon, it has to balance. Otherwise you have a system that either destroys energy or creates it de novo.

The fundamental failure of those who think they are invoking the second law of thermodynamics is the failure to understand the difference between radiation flux in one direction and net radiation flux. The latter is always from hotter object to cooler, but that only says that more radiation is flowing from hotter to cooler than vice-versa.

Those who fail to understand the distinction should never try to start a business.

Betty: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!...[obscene statement physically deleted]Betty: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system! Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed![second obscene statement physically deleted]Betty: Ooh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?...

John, you sure like to gaslight. All Eli had to do was answer my questions. If he didn't like my obscenities he could have quoted the non-obscene physics parts and answered them, while deleting the rest.

I told Eli that I will keep insulting him and his guests when he refuses to tell the truth.

I don't think I'm being "repressed". I'm repressing Eli with Truth, and he can't take it. I gave him an easy way out with my obscenities, and like a sucker, he fell for it - he now has an excuse to ban me. The wise will see through this.

Betty, your questions don't make any sense. Literally. For your question 1, photons don't "choose" anything, they are not sentient. The radiation has no choice to go where it goes, it just goes where it goes because of the geometric and physical limitations put on the system: a blackbody, constructed as an essentially infinitely thin plate will radiate equal amounts in both directions. Period. It will not 'decide' to radiate less to one side, just because it receives more radiation from that side.

Your second question is in principle answered by a simple counter-question: why would it? It can't! If it would do what you think it does, it would create a situation where one plate (blue) receives MORE radiation than it emits, but remains isothermal, whereas the other plate (green) emits MORE than it receives and ALSO remains isothermal - isothermal with the blue plate at that. This is thermodynamically impossible. But that is related to the fact that you seem to believe in sentient photons, or photons that magically turn back when they realize they are going towards something that is hotter...

In case you're not caught up, my best understanding of his "reasoning" is that photons are something like perfectly conducting heat pipes and have a temperature rather than an energy. That is, that the blue plate radiates 240K photons that warm up the green plate. While the green plate is colder it emits cold photons which have no effect on the blue plate because, er, well, they are cold photons and "obviously" can have no effect. Once the green plate warms to 240K, the 240K photons are swapped back and forth in harmony as 240K photons are now emitted by both sides of the green plate. The ones hitting the blue plate just maintain the blue plate at 240K because "obviously" that's all 240K photons can do.

He has stated in another thread that this process can be extended to any number of successive green plates in a row. Steady state would be that all warm to 240K as the 240K photons from the Sun's heat are radiated/(conducted?) down the line.

Of course this doesn't work, but there it is. That is what he really is saying. And it does kinda make one wonder why the blue plate doesn't warm up to the same temperature as the surface of the Sun as the sun is emitting 5778K photons at the blue plate which somehow only heat it up to 240K. But that point never enters his thinking.

That's rich. I seem to recall that I asked you above what happened to the 'red' photon labelled "back radiation" and not getting a coherent answer.

Many people ahve pressed you on this, but you don't respond. Perhpas it's an awkward question for you, so let me reframe it. Imagine a laser that emits radiation of the same wavelength as the photons emitted by CO₂. Point it at the ground and pull the trigger. What happens to the photons? Do they pass through the Earth, or do they bounce off the ground and into space, every single one of them?

Take your time 'Betty Pound', but do tell. Can a CO₂ laser heat the ground?

Some people knocked down their own strawmen and threw in some red herrings.

Some people still don't understand that photons are not all the same, and that a hotter object emits photons of a higher frequency. A hotter object sends all the same photons that a colder object sends to it PLUS more. A colder object will never heat a warmer object, i.e. the green plate will not recycle blue's photons to make blue warmer.

Christian,The photons from the cold object travel to the warm object at the same time as the warm object sends its "subset of photons matching the colder object" to the cold object. It's a swap! If that wasn't the case the colder object would be cooling further.

Betty, just out of curiosity, suppose you WANTED to make one plate 262 K (ie P/A = sigma T^4 = 266.7 W/m^2) and make a second plate 220 K (ie P/A = sigma T^4 = 133.3 W/m^2). The two plates are floating in deep space and each has an area of 1 m^2 on each face. Each plate has an adjustable heater. What power would you supply to each plate to achieve this result?

"The photons from the cold object travel to the warm object at the same time as the warm object sends its "subset of photons matching the colder object" to the cold object. It's a swap! If that wasn't the case the colder object would be cooling further."

Well, at least now Betty acknowledges that the Green Plate (GP) is sending radiation to the Blue Plate (BP), and that the BP takes up this radiation.

It's only a small additional step for Betty to realize that this means the BP in the presence of the GP is receiving more energy per time unit than in its absence, and thus *must* warm up.

Unfortunately, this likely is also the one impossible step for Betty to take...somehow Betty is stuck in thinking that photons can only be transferred into work when they strike an object that has a lower temperature than the source.

So, a simple question, Betty, and one I know you will ignore or handwave away:

If in your reasoning the GP will heat up to the same temperature as its source (the BP), why does the BP *not* heat up to the same temperature as *its* heat source: the sun!

-----Well, at least now Betty acknowledges that the Green Plate (GP) is sending radiation to the Blue Plate (BP), and that the BP takes up this radiation.

It's only a small additional step for Betty to realize that this means the BP in the presence of the GP is receiving more energy per time unit than in its absence, and thus *must* warm up.-----Sadly, marco, no. You see, in BP's universe photons have a temperature not an energy. Cold photons just go on in and do nothing. Only photons which are greater than a plate's temperature can do anything there. The energy from cold photons simply disappears, apparently.

"Does the co2 laser have an energy source? Are you claiming its powered by co2 alone? Didn't think so. What a stupid example. "

I'm simply asking you what happens to photons emitted by a CO₂ laser, when it's pointed toward the Earth. The salient issue in this particular question is what happens to them, and not what energy source generated them - that's a different question...

The natural state of the world is to be filled with dark. A dark bulb lets us see by removing the dark, so it doesn't block the view any more. Proof? What does a bulb look like when it stops working? It's black - because it's full of dark. There's no more room for it to suck more dark."

This is an internally self-consistent explanation. The only problem is that it is completely contrary to our knowledge of physics and electricity.

Betty's explanations are internally self-consistent, as long as you follow a highly-compartmentalized method of thought. You can't collect several comments together and try to see consistency amongst them - you're only allowed to look at comments one at a time, in isolation. That appears to be how Betty's mind works. each comment, internally consistent, only to be forgotten ("outside the compartment") when another thought comes about. Betty can even switch compartments mid-sentence.

Betty, you wrote "because the colder object doesn't have the higher frequency photons to do so." That implies (actually, requires) you believe the following. Please answer "yes" or "no" to the following two simple questions.

A photon can be absorbed by an object only if

(a) that photon is greater than or equal to some particular minimum frequency/wavelength, and

(b) that minimum frequency/wavelength depends on the temperature of the object the photon hits.

Betty, you wrote "A warmer object will absorb all the photons from a coldect object but this will NEVER raise its temperature because you are missing the higher frequency photons necessary for that." Thank you for answering my question. That raises another question:

Do you believe that the warmer object's absorption of those "lower frequency" photons entails the warmer object acquiring energy (some energy, greater than zero) from each of those photons?

Betty, I should clarify my previous question to you: I am asking about your definition of "absorption"--whether absorption of an individual photon by matter, by definition means that matter acquires a non-zero amount of energy from that individual photon.

I'm not asking how much energy is absorbed, other than whether it is greater than zero. I'm not asking whether the absorbing matter later emits photons. I'm not asking about the cumulative effect of multiple such individual photons. I'm not asking what happens even a femtosecond after absorption, only what happens literally in that moment.

Your problem as you have been repeatedly told is you think the green plate is warming the blue plate. It isn't. I repeat, the green plate is not heating up the blue plate.

As you have been repeatedly told, the Sun is doing all the heating. All the relationships of the plates--i.e., black bodies--do is define how the how the Sun's energy flows through subsequent black bodies.

The max temp for the blue plate is not 240K as you seem to be thinking. 240K is the temp when 400 W/m2 are received and half emitted back towards the Sun and half emitted to space.

Let's put a perfect reflective plate behind the blue plate such that the blue plate can only radiate from its sunward face, what temp does the blue plate reach now at steady state with 400W/m^2 in and all radiation from the back side reflected back into the blue plate? Hint: It is not 240K by a long shot. Yet the reflector is not heating the blue plate in the least, the Sun is. What temperature do you suggest the blue plate would reach in this new setup? I'm guessing you think 240K. You'd be wrong.

BTW, re. your wrong-headed blanket example, 37C is the body's temp with internal heating and cooling mechanisms in balance. Disallow cooling with a perfect insulating blanket and the human body will very much warm to more than 37C--it's called heatstroke. This is why astronauts in EVA suits wear a liquid cooled undergarment that can remove up to 2 million joules per hour, for example.

Betty: No, you did not answer my question, because I did not ask you about the temperature of the object, nor about the whole object. I asked you specifically and narrowly:

When the mass is "full" of energy (that's your term and concept), all photons hitting it are absorbed (that's what you wrote). When an individual one of those photons is absorbed, does that absorption contribute energy to (transfer energy to) the mass?

Survival or space blankets can raise your body temperature. However, if it raises it too high, you will be sick or die, which is why people throw off blankets when they get too hot.

The general principle is the same for IR reflective coatings in halogen lamps which reflect IR from the colder envelope back onto the filament, raising its temperature and thus increasing the amount of visible light "Recycling the radiant heat, less energy is required to raise the filament temperature to the optimum level" Bulbs using this technology last twice as long https://www.topbulb.com/blog/ir-mean-halogen-bulb-description-codes/

Christian, were you one of those boys that liked to torture small animals?

"Your problem as you have been repeatedly told is you think the green plate is warming the blue plate. It isn't. I repeat, the green plate is not heating up the blue plate.

As you have been repeatedly told, the Sun is doing all the heating. All the relationships of the plates--i.e., black bodies--do is define how the how the Sun's energy flows through subsequent black bodies."

That's not what Eli's diagrams show. He is in fact saying that the Green recycles 50% extra of sun's energy from Blue, back to Blue.

You can write all the gibberish you want, it means nothing. The diagram and math show what it shows.

Don't be a liar. The added Green plate magically turns the sun's 400 into 533. So if you're not claiming the Green plate is a heater, then you are left with an equally stupid position of claiming the Green plate tells the sun to send more radiation to Blue. Such a thing does not exist in physics.

Betty, thank you for answering my question with your answer that the photon from the colder object is absorbed by the warmer object via the mechanism of "the hotter object emitted a photon and made space for a photon from the colder object."

Your answer requires the hotter object to emit a photon in one of these ways:

(a) Before the colder object's photon arrives at the hotter object. That violates temporal causality.

(b) After the colder object's photon arrives, but before that photon is absorbed. That requires the hotter object to keep the photon intact inside the hotter object's matter until the hotter object emits a photon. That mechanism has never been described by anyone ever in the history of physics as far as I know.

I'm wondering if Betty Pound is perhaps related to Mark V Shaney? The literary style is remarkably similar, and if true it would provide an excellent demonstartion of the futility of attempting to reason with a Markov chain.

Winston, I don't think a Markov chain is capable of maintaining the same ignorance of basic physics throughout so many comments.

In the meantime, Betty still deliberately evades the question why Betty believes the Blue and Green plate will equilibrate at the same temperature...which is much lower than the temperature of the sun. Surely, in the strange world of Betty, the hotter sun must continue to warm the blue plate until it is as warm as the sun. If not, it makes no sense that Betty is adamant that the green plate must warm up to the same temperature as the blue plate, because the blue plate is the heat source for the green plate, just like the sun is the heat source for the blue plate.

If you weight around 200 pounds then because your metabolism provides about 100W you will heat up if enclosed in a (completely) reflective blanket at just less than 2F per hour. So if you are covered for a day your body temp would reach over 120F.

Except you would have died before this and your metabolism would have stopped producing that much energy. Decomposition produces less energy so after death you would heat up more slowly.izen

(there are numerous plumbing/water heater sites that provide these sorts of calculations)

The sun at that distance can only provide 400 W/m2. Because the sun is a radial point source both plates will warm to 200 W/m2, or 244K. There is no reason why the blue plate must send 267 to space, when the green plate is 133.

the blue plate is much cooler than the sun when emitting 400 ( which is 200 for each surface ). It is still much cooler when emitting 533 ( which is 266 for each surface.

Equilibrium with the temperature of the sun is at 400 for each surface. Then blue has the same temperature as the sun.

So there is much potential by what the sun can do.

Well, and as to suits and human body temperature: Tell your theory to the millions of medic aid assistents that proof otherwise.

If they wrap an cooled human with a body temperature of 32C in a thin reflective foil, his temperature rises again, even in the 20C envoirenment of the ambulance car. If they don't use the foil, the human might die of cold.

Tell them they are successfully doing something impossible every day.

Your comments to this point "It's a lie" only show how helpless you are facing every day physics at practical work with your approach.

On a cold day your body is heating the environment. If you want to keep warm you will wear a coat. The coat will never raise your skin or internal temperature above 98.6F. Your coat just blocks covection and reduces cooling.

This is all ripping fun, although feeding the troll is probably unwise, but I have a small request of Betty. When saying "that's a lie" or calling some one a "filthy liar" could you add a bit of context so we know ehich previous comment you are referring to? Thanks in advance.

"The sun at that distance can only provide 400 W/m2. Because the sun is a radial point source both plates will warm to 200 W/m2, or 244K. There is no reason why the blue plate must send 267 to space, when the green plate is 133."

In this Gedankenxperiment it doesn't matter at what distance you place the green plate from the blue plate. If the two plates are perfectly flat and perfectly parallel, and there is vacuum in-between, you can place the green plate as far away as you want: it will *still* not heat up to the same temperature as the blue plate, because the blue plate receives MORE energy per time/unit than the green plate.

Also, you now ignore your magical photons, and go back to bad accounting. The Green plate nicely emits all of the 267 W it receives, while the blue plate nicely emits all 533 it received.

20 seconds of google leads you to the official NASA statements about the problems as well as the patent from 1969 for the cooling garment. You will also find engineering papers with real measured values.

So you really say that this physic, successfully applied by generations of engineers and working the way it is supposed to every day, is wrong?

Just to give you a very small viewe of what is to be found there on the web:

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/188969main_Keeping_Your_Cool.pdf ( a veary easy one for you to start with )

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710009964.pdf ( The patent of the cooling garment from 1969. Explaining nicely, what cooling is needed for. )

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150003483.pdf ( A paper with actual measurements. You might find all the wrong physics measured and applied there highly entertaining. )

It is hard not to see all the evidence, but I'm quite sure that you can manage this trick.

Just because I'm curios: What do you claim is happening to the sun, if it is surrounded by a sphere of a perfectly reflective material, the material to be at 0K?

Thank you for answering my most recent question, Betty. Summary of what you wrote:

1. The colder object emits photons independently from the hotter object's emissions. The colder and hotter objects emit photons spontaneously, without coordinating with each other. The hotter object does not emit a photon in anticipation of the arrival of a colder object's photon. The hotter object does not empty its energy bucket in anticipation of the arrival of a photon from the colder object. (You wrote that.)

2. There is no delay in absorption of a colder object's photon by the hotter object, due to the hotter object being "full" of energy and needing to emit a photon to make room for the arriving photon. There is no backed up traffic. (You wrote that.)

3. All photons from the colder object that hit the hotter object are absorbed by the hotter object. None are reflected. None pass through the hotter object and come out the other side. Absorption of the colder object's photons entails all their energy being absorbed by the hotter object. (You wrote that.)

Let's use your above beliefs in the context of a single batch of photons from a colder object, all arriving at the hotter object together--at the same time. There are no more photons behind those. (The colder object was removed after that first batch.)

The necessary logical conclusion from all of what you wrote, is that all the colder object's photons increase the total energy of the hotter object. The only way to prevent that increase in total energy is for the hotter object to lose energy by emitting photons. But you wrote that the hotter object does not do that tit for tat, instead emitting spontaneously. "Spontaneously" means in accord with SB. SB means that the following process unfolds over time: (1) First, the total energy of the hotter object increases due to energy gained by absorption of photons from the colder object. That happens regardless of how much energy the hotter object already has, because as you wrote, there is no prevention or delay of absorption. (2) Later in time, the hotter object emits photons. That is not tit for tat regarding the absorbed individual photons. Instead it is in response to the new, larger, total energy content of the hotter object. How much energy is lost by the hotter object is dictated by SB, which depends on the total energy in the hotter object. That energy loss does not happen all at once, but over time, during which the total energy of the hotter object remains larger than it was before the photons were absorbed.

During the time interval in between the hotter object's total energy increasing by absorption and then finishing decreasing by emission, the hotter object has more energy than it did before the colder object's photons arrived. By definition of temperature, during that time interval the hotter object's temperature is higher than it was before the photons arrived. The hotter object's temperature has been increased by the colder object's photons, for a non-zero period of time.

Betty says: "Reduced cooling does not lead to heating. Reduced breaking is not accelerating..."

If only you had the insight to understand own analogy! Suppose my car is rolling down a hill in a steady-state condition -- the brakes are applied just enough to keep the car from speeding up or slowing down. If I reduce the braking, then the car accelerates.

Reduced cooling (restricting the energy outflow) -- when the heating remains constant (maintaining the energy inflow) -- does indeed lead to increasing temperatures. This is so blindingly obvious and intuitive that any 10 year old should be able to grasp it!

"There is nothing about the space suit heating you up via your own body temperature.The space suit is for hot (and cold) EXTERNAL environments. "

Yes, that is also one of their uses. But read thesources carefully: NASA engineers believe the cooling garment also prevents overheating due to the power of the own metabolism.

Question: Why?

"Reduced cooling does not lead to heating. Reduced breaking is not accelerating..."

Again you forget that there is a source of energy, or, in your analogy thus has to be, a source of speed.If the motor delivers constant power in unchanging gear, than reduced breaking leads to what? Heh? Can't hear you?

And yes, that is a really good analogy for teaching the principle. I have never thought of it before, thank you for that.

Betty is telling us that light bulb manufacturers are putting reflective coatings in halogen lamps for no reason whatsoever. After all, the reflected IR cannot make the filament hotter in any way...in Betty's world.

Betty - are you sure you are not confusing an inert object, that has only the heat that it starts with, and a body - human body in this case - that produces it's own heat (via exothermic chemical reactions)? The inert body won't and can't get warmer by wrapping it in insulation, but the human body keeps making heat and will - if you can't take that perfect, 100% insulating coat off and shed excess heat once you fully warm up - exceed "normal body temperature". You would start to sweat but that won't cool you down and you will keep getting hotter until you start getting heat stress and heat stroke - (hyperthermia - which is defined medically by having a raised core body temperature of 40.6 °C (105.1 °F) or above).

Of course that doesn't make it a good analogy for what the greenhouse effect in atmosphere does, just a good example of what insulation does. The key things with the greenhouse effect are having some solar energy at wavelengths capable of travelling in through the atmosphere without warming it but still warming the ground and water, which radiates some of that heat at different wavelengths that do warm the atmosphere on the way back out.

YES! Exactly! And in this example you have the 'extra effect' of incoming sunlight! In both cases, a continuous input of energy (either sunlight to the plate or gravity to the car) must be balanced with a continuous siphoning off of energy (either radiation escaping to the rest of the universe or heat generated in the brake pads) if a steady state is to be maintained. If you change EITHER incoming or outgoing, then the steady-state conditions will be disturbed unless/until a new steady-state can be re-established.

Betty asks: "Eli, I want you to link data comparing two bulbs: regular and reflective coated. I want to see power input and max reached filament temperature for both."

"In 1990, a halogen incandescent light bulb was introduced that used a new technology. An infrared (IR) reflecting, visible light transmitting optical coating, called a hot mirror, was deposited on the outside surface of the inner quartz envelope of a halogen incandescent light bulb. This hot mirror coating reflects a portion of the heat back to the filament where it reheats the filament. This recycling of the former waste heat allows the filament to reach the proper temperature using less electricity when compared to an uncoated halogen incandescent bulb (Figure 1). These early ‘hybrid’ halogen incandescent light bulbs achieved efficiencies of greater than 18 LpW (lumens per watt) for a 70 watt bulb. This gave the 70 watt hybrid halogen incandescent bulb the same light output as the 100 watt incandescent bulb."

Well, I'd almost say "INDEED!" You'd think this was the concept: to add a coating that prevents IR radiation to get through, and magically, IT WORKS!

But Betty...photons in the visible light have a *higher* energy than those IR photons, so how can that be?

Unless you are now going to tell us that an IR photon *knows* whether it is coming from a warmer or colder object and moving towards a colder or warmer object, despite having the same wavelength...

"No, Eli, the reflective coating does not make the filament hotter. The reflective coating helps scatter light better, so it appears brighter outside."

Sigh. This makes no sense whatsoever. Scatter light better so it appears brighter? Nope.And yes, Virginia, the filament does get hotter due to the IR reflective coating. And if you believe that is wrong, you'd wonder why no one challenges patents like the one below, which explicitly states that this is how the frikkin' reflective coating works!http://www.google.ch/patents/US6967443?hl=de&cl=en"The totally reflecting coating reflects the infrared radiation escaping at acute angles and directs the infrared radiation towards the filament to increase the temperature of the filament and thus increase the efficacy of the lamp."

Just for the non physicists here, scattering refers to changing the direction of a photon without changing its wavelength. Things like mirrors and droplets can do that. If anybunny wants a demo, stick a laser pointer behind a small glass of milk.

-----You state otherwise. Please wrap the CPU of your PC in some insulating material.

Nothing to fear from this, for the temperature of the CPU cannot rise due to the presence of the colder insulator.------

This is simply the space suit example written much more easily and cheaply done with the added benefit of being something Betts can immediately try as we know he has access to a computer and can guess he may have access to a blanket--his protestations that blankets do not warm him aside. Yet it is no less deadly to the insulated object. So instead, of killing Betts, you simply kill his means of posting more drivel! Much better legally! Good example.

There is a famous real world example of environment suit cooling failure leading to heatstroke in the old Man High project high stratosphere balloon flights of the late 50s. The pilot of Manhigh III developed a temperature of over 108F while the cabin was in the high 90sF. One--well Betts, that is--can only wonder where this body heating came from. Didn't quite kill him but it was a very close run thing, and that was the last flight in the series.

"Why don't you find the exact quote in your links which claims a space suit spontaneously heats you up using just your body's emitted energy."

Oh, they are easy to find, don't worry. Here they come:

One major problem of manned space flight is the proper thermal control of the crewman during intravehicular and extravehicular missions. Heat generated metabolically and also from the external environment must be removed from the crewman's environment in order to protect him from excess thermal loads.

- from the patent of 1969, second link I provided. Page 3 of the pdf, lines 32-38. -

Maintaining sensible cooling as metabolic rates increase requires ever lower coolant and skin temperatures, with the difference between skin and coolant temperature increasing nonlinearly as indicated by typical thermal comfort curves (Figure 4). The sensible cooling approach is not always a good match for human metabolism, which evolved to control core temperature by latent cooling (i.e., perspiration).

- from the paper of 2015, the third linik I provided. Page 4 of the pdf, line 1-4. -

It is not sufficient for the health and well-being of an astronaut just to be protected from the hazards of the environment in which he or she is trying to work. It is also necessary to consider the conditions that are created by the suit itself. One of the most important ofthese conditions is temperature. Suit insulation technologies protect the astronaut from extreme high and low temperatures of the space environment. However, the same insulation technology also works to keep heat released by the astronaut's body inside the suit. To get an idea of what this is like, imagine walking around in summer wearing a plastic bag. For this reason, an active cooling system is employed

- From the tutorial, first link I provided. Beginning with line 1. -

-----

It is some fun, to show the world you are not even able to read sources which are delivered to you for free.

Simple question: Why are you sweating, even if environment temperature is below your body temperature? Why does your biology insists on the need of cooling your body, although your brain knows better?

There's a scene in Erik the Viking where Aud gives Erik a cloak (actually a towel...) of invisibility, which Erik finds to his later detriment works only on Arnulf.

It seems that actual principles of physics are similarly only invisible to 'Betty Pound', and that what is completely apparent to everyone else is absolutely unperceivable by BP. It's a classic example of a cognitive scotoma, where the bit of reality that cannot be seen by the afflicted mind is substituted with a construct of said mind, that is congruent with what the mind believes should be there.

BP's excuses and irrational reasonings on this thread and the previous one are fascinating from a psychological perspective. It matters not whether his beliefs are genuine or feigned - either way they open a telling window into the mind of a science denier.

"During the flight, Lieutenant McClure became dehydrated. Later, temperatures inside the gondola rose to 118 °F. (47.8 °C.). The cooling system was unable to dissipate heat from McClure’s body, and his body core temperature rose to 108.6 °F. (42.6 °C.). After twelve hours, it was decidede to end the flight."

"The area under the red curve is smaller than grey curve. That is total less energy - exactly the opposite of what Eli claims."

Sigh. You manage to find an article with a graph that you *think* supports your claim.

Well, what does the article say:"This hot mirror coating reflects a portion of the heat back to the filament where it reheats the filament. This recycling of the former waste heat allows the filament to reach the proper temperature using less electricity when compared to an uncoated halogen incandescent bulb (Figure 1)."

And yes, patents do not need to be scientifically correct, but not being so makes them easily challenged. You just describe the same invention but with the 'correct' principle, and you can claim you do not use the same principle as the old patent and therefore have made a new invention!(sounds easier than it is in practice, but it happens - or so my patent lawyer claims, but what would he know, right?)

If you read the tech report, the 118F reading was from a badly placed sensor that was placed above a chemical reactor. Specifically, on p. 126 of the now declassified final report http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=AD0259635 it states:

"Only the panel temperatures read by the pilot were inordinately high, 1180F. It was soon established that this was caused by the fact that the sensing element was accidently left out of reach on top of the C02 and water absorbing air regeneration unit which used a highly exothermic chemical reaction. This reading was readily expLainable, but essentially meaningless." (as is your badly sourced comment)

Also, as this 118F reading was noted early in the flight and eventually went off scale over the 120F limit of the sensor. Had this reading been true, it would have led to an immediate abort and again if true if the mission were not immediately aborted, the pilot most definitely would have died. The dry bulb temperature of the cabin is talked about in several places and is graphed in Figure 50 on page 169. It never gets to body temperature. The lowest line in Fig 50 is from an additional sensor that was also erroneously placed in a cool area. The dry bulb temp was considered the most accurate in the report.

The whole report is 216 pages but makes for fascinating reading. It discusses temperature effects in great detail. McClure was able to take a last reading near landing of his rectal temp as 108.5. (see page 132). As I am an Air Force brat, I read all this long, long ago. I've even pilgrimaged to one of the launch sites.

"Incandescent light sources usually generate approximately 10-15% of visible light, and about 85-90% of infrared light. Incandescent infrared coating on the transparent cover a considerable part of the filament by the infrared light emitted reflected back to the filament. Filament absorb some infrared light, thereby reducing the amount of electric power to the heating filament at a given temperature required, and thus increasing the luminous efficiency of the lamp"

"Not surprised that you could not produce any data on space suit raising your internal temperature."

This is overwhelmingly funny. I gave you sources, you seem to ignore them. There is a whole industry doing nothing else than measure the effect of protective clothes on the core temperature of humans. The papers published about that may go to the hundreds, and so do the measurements. They all show this:

Encapsulation in thermal insulators can easily bring up the core temperature of a human. Furthermore different insulations leads to different results under the same environmental conditions. Thus the temperature change cannot be determined by the physical activity alone.This is measured and plotted in so many publications - do you really insist on being embarassed further by me linking to some of those measurements?Or is it enough for you to see that everyday's application of thermodynamics performed by engineers all over the world proves your claims wrong?

It was fun enough to see you completely unable to grasp the simple concept the engineers work with. It will be more fun to see you explaining how on earth things work fine millionfold which according to you should be impossible in every single case.

By the way: Will you deliver some more stuff to this amusing "reduced breaking doesn't lead to accelaration" claim you made, which could be disproved within 30 seconds? I told you how to perform the test... running motor, fixed gear, two conditions of breaking. Can you at least grasp the concept behind this simple everyday experiment, which simply leads to book keeping forces the same way you should book keep energies in proper thermodynamics?

Total energy is determined by two factors: frequencies and intensities.

If you have some IR photons becoming UV, but you reduce the IR photons, you have not gained total energy. To get total energy you integrate under the curve. You would like to pretend that merely raising some frequencies is good enough. It's not.

There is no evidence of heating via IR backradiation. There is however more efficient way to create visible light.

"And yes, patents do not need to be scientifically correct, but not being so makes them easily challenged. You just describe the same invention but with the 'correct' principle, and you can claim you do not use the same principle as the old patent and therefore have made a new invention!"

Completely false. The patent is for special IR filter/coating. No one can use that specific coating. The physics explanation of why and how it works is irrelevant. They can claim the IR filter makes Santa Claus happy, and that is what makes it efficient.

There are even patents for perpetual motion machines. There are also many overlapping patents.

Not that this matters. The physics principle involved here is not IR backradiation, but refraction/scattering.

There is also a reverse filter. It blocks the visible light and enhances IR. The total provided energy is the same, but it's in a different spectral band that is closer to earth-like temperatures. So it feels like more HEAT.

Um Betts...The original official report is neither a story to "disbelieve" nor "fake news". Later misreadings of the official report may be stories not to believe or fake news. It is also quite clear you did not read the temperature parts of the report nor even glance at Figure 50 long enough to minimally understand it.

Believe what you will...you certainly have given ample proof of your ability to accept false beliefs here.

You look so desperate trying to find one exotic situation where you could be right, and it's not even for the correct reasons.

From your source, page 132:

"A long 40 minutes later, the capsule landed in the dark with-in a few miles of the runway from which it had been launchednearly 12 hours before. A recovery helicopter landed beside ita few minutes later in time to see Lt McClure remove the upperhemisphere and crawl out under his own power.The last setting of the temperature bridge was 108.3F andLt McClure remembered that the needle was off zero by an amountthat represented an additional 0.20. The final internal tem-perature reading at the time of landing was 108.59F."

And you quoted earlier:

"The cooling system was unable to dissipate heat from McClure’s body, and his body core temperature rose to 108.6 °F. (42.6 °C.)"

Hmm, we have a match between external circuit and internal body temp. Funny how the whole report doesn't mention spontaenous self-heating due to insulating backradiation.

You obviously learned nothing about the cause of his heat fatigue.

Figure 50 shows the dry bulb is the least reliable data source: only 3 data points, biggest intervals. It completely missed the extreme rise in the instrumental panel. I find it funny how figure 50 debunks you completely. You're only argument is complaining about the instruments when they rose to 120. They "must" be wrong" only then. How can they be wrong on the way up to 120?

Read a little closer and don't just pick and choose. The dry bulb temps were taken by the pilot in his actual immediate environment. Possibly there is a reason they were accepted as accurate. Naahhh.

And again, the high temps were immediately identified as erroneous. Of course we also have the much lower temps from the other sensor, but of course you don't even consider them. The tech report did consider them but dismisses them for good reasons.

You lecturing people about what science is and is not with sophomoric depth is pretty funny! Deniers often do this. It's always ludicrous.

Actually the whole curve was wrong as a cabin temp indicator as the sensor was on the CO2 scrubber which involves an exothermic reaction. As was noted immediately at the time. See quote above from p. 126. Your deep reading must have missed it.

"I don't say the opposite. Less and reduced are synonyms.Reduced breaking does not lead to acceleration."

Yes, that is what you said and that is easily proven wrong by a simple experiment everybody with a car can perform. If you had a car you could even falsifiy yourself by experiment, but you'd rather won't try to find out, will you?

You insinuated I had been fabricating numbers showing more breaking leads to more speed:

"Yeah, I remember when you fabricated speeds proving that more breaking makes your car go faster, and less breaking makes it go slower. "

Which is a straightforward lie, for I have shown numbers that prove reduced breaking leading to accelaration when motor running in fixed gear. That is less breaking = more speed. It's the very thing you claim to be impossible.

Why can everybody owning a car do things which are according to you physically impossible? Any answer to this?

And now data come which are about to ashame you further:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784664/

Figure 2 here shows how identical systems are heating up differently when wrapped in reflective foil. Those with the foil are all warmer than those without.

The systems contain of anesthetized mice ( which are real ammaml bodies like humans ), without and with thermodevices, each setup with and without foil.

This simple measurement shows in all clarity something that should be impossible according to the physics you preach here.

But I'm sure you will not accept this either, although it matches the discussion perfectly ( three bodies + a heat sink, one body at least being a heat source ).

Betty, how do you know how the curves relate to each other and how they should be compared? Just taking an integral without knowing how the different curves relate to each other is outright stupid. Did you notice the red curve abruptly stopping at about 3000 nm? Do you know why?

But that taken aside, you just argued that low energy photons (IR region) can cause the formation of high energy photons (UV-VIS region). How does that fit with your prior argument that photons from colder objects cannot do something with warmer objects, because those photons do not have as much energy as those coming from the warmer object, and just 'replace' the same (but more) photons coming from the warmer object? You now argue *against* that simple exchange, and claim formation of new and higher energy photons. What magic is involved in that?

"Just taking an integral without knowing how the different curves relate to each other is outright stupid."

Uhuh, doing things right is stupid, and doing it wrong is "smart"

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/B/Blackbody+Radiation

"The total energy being radiated (the area under the curve) increases rapidly as the temperature increases (Stefan–Boltzmann Law).

https://atmos.washington.edu/~caseyw8/Ch2_blackbody_radiation.pdf

"The height of any one curve tells you how bright the self-radiation is at each wavelength for a black body at that temperature, and the area under the curve tells you the total energyemitted."

"But that taken aside, you just argued that low energy photons (IR region) can cause the formation of high energy photons (UV-VIS region)."

Nope, never said that. It's the refractory IR coating that makes the "conversion" not photons.

"How does that fit with your prior argument that photons from colder objects cannot do something with warmer objects, because those photons do not have as much energy as those coming from the warmer object, and just 'replace' the same"

The total energy has not changed.

I made a simple statement that I clarified multiple times:

There are two factors: frequencies and intensity at each frequency.

The IR coating does not lead to more IR photons due to backradiation, as Eli claimed. While they got switched to higher frequency, their intensity at IR frequency dropped to compensate.

I'll make it simple for you since you have difficulty understanding two dimensions.

6*2 = 122*6 = 12

You can have a short fat rectangle and a tall skinny rectangle be the same area.

You can also warp the rectangle to be 1*12, or 3*4.

Doesn't matter. The total energy, i.e. heating potential remains.

Like all cranks you overload one side of the equation, and neglect the other.

I don't see IR backradiation in the study. Funny how the scientists missed that.

My fever once ran to 104.5F. I guess if I was wrapped in tin foil, you'd be claiming the tin foil did it.

"Which is a straightforward lie, for I have shown numbers that prove reduced breaking leading to accelaration when motor running in fixed gear. That is less breaking = more speed. It's the very thing you claim to be impossible."

That's funny. I ran the experiment myself.

I sped up to 20mph, then stepped on the break fully, I came to a quick stop.

I sped up 20mph again, and only stepped on my break half-way, and guess what? I slowed down slower.

are you really that unable to remember anything of importance? I told you thrice how the experiment is designed. Since we are talking about systems that are continuously driven by a constant energy input, the car analogy requires constant force on the wheels by the motor.

That is what "fixed gear" means. The car is then driving at a certain speed constantly on even street.And if you break slightly enough the car will drive on slower, but the motor will not die. However, if you then reduce the breaking the former speed will come back. That is acceleration.

If you break hard enough for a total stop you have proven nothing, for you have just killed the experiment. Everyone can bring the motor to die that way. Can you turn off the sun?

And yes, the mice study was not about radiation at all. It simply shows how reduced cooling leads to higher temperatures if energy sources feed the system.

That is something you claimed to be impossible, but it was measured anyway. How?

Betty, thank you for that link. Unfortunately, it does not answer my question to you: please provide citations that show the IR coating in halogen lamps work as anti-Stokes refraction compounds, *which is what you claimed*.

That the integral doesn't change is irrelevant, because no one here contradicts this. Of course energy in = energy out, the same as for the Blue Plate - Green Plate system. However, what you continuously ignore is that for the filament to send out more visible light, it *must* have heaten up. Or taken from a different point of view: since a substantial portion of energy no longer is emitted out of the system (much less IR radiation leaves the system due to the coating), more energy must leave through other wavelengths. But how do we get those other wavelengths? Apparently, as you also seem to accept based on the links you gave us, it is primarily the shorter wavelengths that increase in intensity. But how do we get those, Betty? That's the question. *You* claimed it was due to an anti-Stokes effect of the coating, but *you* did not provide any citations for that.

I don't know if you own a car with manual gear control or one that is automatic.

But yes, a brick on the gas pedal is what makes the analogy, if you want so.Or how else are you going to create a constant force to the wheels that remains while breaking?

And no, you are not free to chose a design of experiment if you want to prove me wrong. You can do it with the same design as me or you can't do it. Comparative studies require same conditions.

And yes, there is a blocking of convection that leads to reduced cooling. But you demanded this will never lead to higher temperatures whatsoever. You didn't say this for pure radiation cases. Are you going to restate your claim?

That with hindered cooling mechanisms the heating due to a heating source simply becomes more effective is what all the fuzz ever was about.You stated this as untrue. Reality contradicts you ( as do the 1st law, but you never cared for this ).

"That the integral doesn't change is irrelevant, because no one here contradicts this. Of course energy in = energy out, the same as for the Blue Plate - Green Plate system. However, what you continuously ignore is that for the filament to send out more visible light, it *must* have heaten up."

BP: Yes, indeed you do contradict this.

You've redefined heat willy nilly not to be an increase in total energy of the system, but an increase in energy in a subcomponent of the system, while neglecting the compensating decrease elsewhere.

No, it *musn't* heat up, because the total energy has not increased.

"Apparently, as you also seem to accept based on the links you gave us, it is primarily the shorter wavelengths that increase in intensity."

That's what the spectral data shows.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_shift

"If the emitted photon has more energy, the energy difference is called an anti-Stokes shift;[5] this extra energy comes from dissipation of thermal phonons in a crystal lattice, cooling the crystal in the process. Yttrium oxysulfide doped with gadolinium oxysulfide is a common industrial anti-Stokes pigment, absorbing in the near-infrared and emitting in the visible region of the spectrum. Photon upconversion is another anti-Stokes process."

You cannot subsum something by an adiabatic process, when there is no adiabatic process.

Please explain how a process in which heat is produced continually ( by the sun ) and is exchanged with the envoirenment ( radiation into space ) is adiabatic!It is simply not.

Like I suspected maybe 500 comments ago this is the deep root of your misunderstanding of the process.

It was never adiabatic, it is not, and it will never be.

Your demanding for equilibrium with uniform temperatures is consequence of this error. You failed physics on very first principles: proper definition of a state. Instead redefining the state you are even up to sacrifice first law, because you think to be right without any doubt.

To expand a bit on what Christian said, the NIR coating limits the rate at which the bulb can radiate energy to the outside, just as the green plate in the Green Plate Effect or greenhouse gases in the Greenhouse Effect.

In response the system heats up to a higher temperature at which the rate of radiation to the external world matches the rate of heating, either by resistive heating of the filament or from an external radiative light source such as the sun.

Why are solar-derived photons with the same wavenumbers as those in the CO₂ "subsumed" with no further thermodynamic consequence, when solar-derived photons of greater and smaller wavenumbers are not? And just what is the thermodynamic fate of these "subsumed" photons? After all, it's not a term that frequently appears in the physics literature...

And are they "subsumed" in the same way that CO₂-derived are apparently "subsumed"? Are you telling us that if the earth were to be suddenly hoiked a few dozen million kilometres further from the sun these previously "subsumed" photons would suddenly be able to be absorbed? After all, if the planet itself was several dozen degrees colder than it is now, these photons should be able to do what you claim they cannot do at present.

Yes, this is indeed what I am claiming, and it is also what the link you gave me (section 4.6, you proudly referred me to) indicates. It shows *reflection*, not *absorption* followed by *emission*, which is what happens for photon upconversion.

Oh, and here you go, a detailed description of how it all works in the real world, but which cannot be in Betty's world:https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/ies_053.pdf

One needs to remember that in the old GPE thread Betty came around with a link to some web page were a metal rod was heated from one end and thus showed a temperature gradient.

That state with temperature gradient was defined as "steady state".

To show the distinction between this and thermal equilibrium the author there enclosed the system adiabatically, and the rod came over time to a uniform temperature, which is equilibrium state.

This author does nothing wrong. He simply wanted to show that every equilibrium is a steady state, but not every steady state is an equilibrium, and he did with a well defined and correctly described thought experiment.

But anyway our dear Betty took this as a proof that a system with a heat source will go to real thermal equilibrium. She never understood that enclosing something adiabatically means cutting of the heat source. The author never mentioned that explicitly. Like me he maybe lacked the fantasy somebody would take a heat source inside an enclosure and still think the system to be adiabatic.

But this explains from very basic misconceptions on, how someone can claim systems like the GPE to go to uniform temperatures, even if this violates the 1st law. It has nothing to do with photons or sophisticated quantum mechanics. That is only consequence of the earlier and most fundamental misconception: Not to know what the basic characteristics of the system are ( and insisting on the wrong ones despite all overwhelming evidence for this failure ).

Maybe we should not discuss photons. Maybe we should discuss how to teach someone that systems with heat producers will never go to thermal equilibrium.

a) The heat can be transfered away by the same rate it is produced to balance the system in some steady state.

b) The heat will leave the system at some lower rate than it is produced. Consequence is heat up of the system to the point where a) is reached - or eternally.

c) The heat will leave the system at some higher rate than it is produced. Consequence is cool down of the system to the point where a) is reached - or to 0K.

These are the only ways physics offer. None of them is equilibrium.

Betty likes to press on us a fourth opportunity

d) When heat is produced continually within a system, the system will come to some uniform temperature which will not rise any further. It's unnecessary to talk about where the heat goes that is still produced when this uniform temperature is reached, or how it is transported within a system that has no more temperature gradients.

We should explain why d) is somewhat wrong.

( What? That's exactly what we are doing here all the time? Come on... )

KoFi Button

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.